The analogy between historiography and court proceedings is completely false. In a case court decides a limited number of issues and has to arrive at a final decision in a limited time with limited evidence. In historiography there is never a definitive ruling, the amount of evidence is inexhaustible and from the facts available you can arrive at different interpretations. Conflicting interpretations of events coexist often for centuries. The expectation of the author that history deals with uninterperted facts and can deliver final verdict betrays total lack of understanding of what historians do. For the author it is probably obvious that the final verdict of impartial historians would be: ?all the violence in Palestine since the beginnings of Zionism more than 100 years ago was caused by Arabs and Zionists only defended themselves.? He can be sure no such consensus will exist in the near future nor in hundred years time. There is not a single ?truth? in history.
Police disperse hundreds in brawl in Kafr Manda, northern Israel (Haaretz)
from the article: Despite everything, one truth
'I am ashamed that I saw injustice and never did anything about it,' Reinhold Hanning tells German courtroom.01:17 30.04.16 | 1 comments
The greatness of the late Israeli actor stems from the fact that her own unique persona informed the credibility of all the characters she played.02:57 30.04.16 | 0 comments
Arrivals / Departures: Anti-Semitism in France is certainly not the reason why this teen chose to come to Israel; an Israeli whose relatives perished in the Holocaust finds living in Berlin 'perfectly fine.'03:33 30.04.16 | 1 comments